Mario "relying on the PP"?

[daver]

I agree, I can't stand when things are pushed that don't need to be. Scott Niedermayer is a good example of this. You'd think he is Denis Potvin. There are times when I see the media portray a player in a way that I can't see it either.

I'll say this with Crosby though, as much as he became a media darling, I think it still made sense at that time.

Crosby had 120 points in his 2nd season. Gretzky had 164, Lemieux had 141. I think Gretzky easily still had the better season as a 19 year old, but I think you could compare Crosby and Mario's 2nd seasons and there was this idea that he was parallel with Mario for the first two years. So there was definitely some anticipation about him. As it was, Mario obviously had seasons where he hit his superstardom status that Crosby never hit. I think many of us thought he would get even better after 2007. He didn't offensively, but I think in 2007 there was this idea that he could.

He did get better offensively after 2007. No, not Mario better, and no, not quite over a full season, and no, you don't look at raw points only to determine if someone got better but he absolutely hit a higher level in the regular season in 2010/11. One could argue he actually started this after getting rid if his Cup hangover a 1/4 of the way into his 09/10 season.

Was he ever destined to reach Mario/Wayne heights? His dominance coming into the league was certainly similar but I think he was more NHL ready at an earlier age than Wayne/Mario that he hit the ground running moreso then those two. Of course playing in a less conducive environment for high scoring cannot be completely ignored.

 

[Syckle78]

I dunno I would love to defend Mario and point out that great players draw a lot of penalties thus leading to more power play scoring at the expense of even strength scoring. However I was told by Daver and the rest of the Pens fans on here for years pp barely count and make you a lesser player. So you should probably just sleep in the bed you made.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I dunno I would love to defend Mario and point out that great players draw a lot of penalties thus leading to more power play scoring at the expense of even strength scoring

i would have assumed exactly the same thing as you, but i know i’ve seen it disproven that the penguins drew more penalties with mario in the lineup than without.

i think either in this thread or another where this same mario vs gretzky argument currently happening someone showed that in one of his big injury seasons it was roughly the same.

in another thread a while back someone showed that the penguins for whatever reason drew way more penalties than almost any other team before and after mario got there.

 

[blogofmike]

i would have assumed exactly the same thing as you, but i know i’ve seen it disproven that the penguins drew more penalties with mario in the lineup than without.

i think either in this thread or another where this same mario vs gretzky argument currently happening someone showed that in one of his big injury seasons it was roughly the same.

in another thread a while back someone showed that the penguins for whatever reason drew way more penalties than almost any other team before and after mario got there.

Year	Pens Rank	Pens PPO	Gretzky Tm Rk	Gretzky Tm PPO
1980	18	262	10	282
1981	2	400	8	347
1982	2	404	6	341
1983	1	358	14	294
1984	10	340	15	318
1985	2	363	19	293
1986	1	425	Last	295
1987	3	378	18	318
1988	1	500	16	402
1989	1	491	11	395
1990	4	403	17	343
1991	7	388	4	391
1992	6	423	10	411
1993	14	440	2	507
1994	16	404	2	444
1995	7	221	19	200
1996	11	420	18	401
1997	11	339	Last	287
1998	4	407	24	351
1999	13	363	17	348

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

NHL won't load for me, so these are old Hockey Reference numbers which have since been updated. There doesn't seem to be any boost from year to year when Lemieux plays a lot compared to when he doesn't.

As mentioned a lot over the last week Peak Lemieux had tons of PP chances, Peak Gretzky did not.

Gretzky had bad timing with his high/low PP chance seasons. Following his 212 point year, the Oilers were under 4.0 PP chances per game for 5 consecutive seasons (and 6 of his first 8 seasons). He was under 4.0 PP chances 8 times overall and over 5.0 4 times, though they came later on and he missed time in a few of those seasons (1988, 1992-94). Obviously missing out on 1992-93 is missing out on a gold mine, but he did manage to steal an Art Ross in 1994.

Gretzky was on a team that was under 300 PP chances while being #1 in PP% 3 times (1983, 1986, 1997), a there was a 4th year under 300 where they were #2 (1985).

 

[daver]

I dunno I would love to defend Mario and point out that great players draw a lot of penalties thus leading to more power play scoring at the expense of even strength scoring.

Whether this is accurate or not is irrelevant to the OP. It has to do with the narrative that Mario's numbers "need adjusting" since he scored more on the PP than at ES in comparison to Wayne and Howe. I.e. he scores less, on a relative basis to the rest of the league, if he doesn't get the same amount of PP opportunities.

 

[frisco]

Mario obviously had seasons where he hit his superstardom status that Crosby never hit. I think many of us thought he would get even better after 2007. He didn't offensively, but I think in 2007 there was this idea that he could.

Crosby never hit Lemieux's level offensively but you could argue in 2011/2012/2013 he was better than he was in 2007. His points/game were higher all three seasons but 2011 was ended by David Steckel, 2012 was shortened by the concussion return, and 2013 was a labor-shortened year and Crosby broke his jaw. Crosby in 2010-11 (pre-Steckel) was the best hockey played by anyone since the lockout including McDavid last year.

My Best-Carey

 

[MadLuke]

Was there any attempt to evaluate how much all that PP time (and maybe even production itself, making games not requiring a goal at the end because of them) did cost Mario on is ES production, one cannot just remove 2 minutes or more of ice time of Mario without giving some of it back in 5v5 imo.

He did get better offensively after 2007

In some new ways (deflection, near the net play, better cycling and so on), but did he not lost some of is skating explosion with the legs injuries, that make it hard to know in net ?

 

[Big Phil]

Crosby never hit Lemieux's level offensively but you could argue in 2011/2012/2013 he was better than he was in 2007. His points/game were higher all three seasons but 2011 was ended by David Steckel, 2012 was shortened by the concussion return, and 2013 was a labor-shortened year and Crosby broke his jaw. Crosby in 2010-11 (pre-Steckel) was the best hockey played by anyone since the lockout including McDavid last year.

My Best-Carey

I think you are probably right. Crosby in that half season before the Steckel hit was amazing. Still did excellent in 2012 and was running away with the Art Ross in 2013 before the injury and STILL almost won it while missing 25% of the year. Similar to a Marioesque sort of Art Ross winning season while playing 60 games.

It would be nice to know if he could have maintained it over a full season.

He did get better offensively after 2007. No, not Mario better, and no, not quite over a full season, and no, you don't look at raw points only to determine if someone got better but he absolutely hit a higher level in the regular season in 2010/11. One could argue he actually started this after getting rid if his Cup hangover a 1/4 of the way into his 09/10 season.

Was he ever destined to reach Mario/Wayne heights? His dominance coming into the league was certainly similar but I think he was more NHL ready at an earlier age than Wayne/Mario that he hit the ground running moreso then those two. Of course playing in a less conducive environment for high scoring cannot be completely ignored.

I think it just goes to show you how hard it is to maintain that sort of pace. We take it for granted because we saw Gretzky do it with what looked to be ease, and Mario did it at a torrid pace too. We'll see with McDavid in a full season this year, but in all honesty it is just so utterly hard to maintain a 2ish PPG pace your whole career. If anything it makes you appreciate Gretzky and Mario more. Even Yzerman in his best year in 1989 peaked at just 1.94 PPG. McDavid was 1.88 last year. Yzerman was never better than 1.63 any other time. It's hard. So my thought is while Crosby had a good pace the first couple of years I think it just simply wasn't in him to be able to be that good. Especially year after year.

 

[daver]

Was there any attempt to evaluate how much all that PP time (and maybe even production itself, making games not requiring a goal at the end because of them) did cost Mario on is ES production, one cannot just remove 2 minutes or more of ice time of Mario without giving some of it back in 5v5 imo.

This shows the rabbit hole one goes down when you start to "adjust" numbers based on the assumption that a player performs the exact same in all eras, usage, icetime, team situation, linemates etc...

Mario was an offensive force that was especially effective on the PP. If one was wondering whether his production would be affected if the Pens didn't get the same relative amount of PP opportunities in a season, he seemingly answered this in 92/93.

 

[blogofmike]

This shows the rabbit hole one goes down when you start to "adjust" numbers based on the assumption that a player performs the exact same in all eras, usage, icetime, team situation, linemates etc...

Mario was an offensive force that was especially effective on the PP. If one was wondering whether his production would be affected if the Pens didn't get the same relative amount of PP opportunities in a season, he seemingly answered this in 92/93.

Peak Lemieux produced fewer points per PP chance than Peak Gretzky.

The fact that you're trying to portray a 440 PP chance season as a low PP season is telling of how high Pittsburgh's chances usually were. It's easily in the top 20% of all PP chance seasons from 1985-1997. While it's a step down from the #1 and #3 seasons the Pens had in 88 and 89 (Top 1% from 85-97) it's still very, very high.

Again this is usually only relevant in Big 4 discussions. Gretzky scored 208 points (146 at ES) on a team with 3.60 PP chances per game, the 7th fewest of all teams from 1985-1997. THAT is producing in a low PP environment. Prime Lemieux never faced one, though his overall scoring very much followed his PP chances.

1997 has been argued as a lesser season because 161 > 122, but Lemieux scored 1.04 ES PPG in both seasons. If one season is prime Lemieux and one isn't, it's odd that Prime Lemieux scores 1.04 ESP/game and non-prime Lemieux scores 1.04 ESP/game. A large part of the overall drop is because he goes from a over 5 PP chances per game down to 4.1 (which is still not low).

This happens to others. In the reverse of the Lemieux 96 and 97 example, 1985 Peter Stastny scores 70 ES points, while 1986 Stastny scores 67. However, despite being the same level of ES scorer, he suddenly re-enters his prime because Quebec goes from 3.8 chances per game to 5.2 chances, allowing Stastny to score 122 points instead of 100. (I like this example because it's easy to calculate the 22% increase.) Something kind of similar happens when Denis Savard scores a career high 131 in 1988 when his team goes from a low PP team to 5.3 per game, allowing him to score more PP points in a single season than Wayne Gretzky ever did.

 

[bobholly39]

Peak Lemieux produced fewer points per PP chance than Peak Gretzky.

Do you have those numbers handy? I've been reading the thread but don't seem to find this exactly, would be curious to see.

 

[blogofmike]

Do you have those numbers handy? I've been reading the thread but don't seem to find this exactly, would be curious to see.

Post 9

"Without accounting for that high PP usage, an Oilers PP chance was just as likely to end with a Gretzky point (16.11 points per 100 team chances) as a Pens PP would end in a Lemieux point (16.05 points per 100 team chances). When you account for the usage difference, Gretzky is a more productive PP scorer (18.80 points per 100 vs 17.08) AND has a lower opportunity cost because being off the ice gives teammates a chance at scoring PP points (which are easier to score)."

 

[Dingo]

id be interested in seeing an even strength vsx (for all players....and vsx10 instead of vsx2, lol)

 

[blogofmike]

id be interested in seeing an even strength vsx (for all players....and vsx10 instead of vsx2, lol)

For ES points my gut feeling is that a straight vs3 would work well.

 

[daver]

Interesting to note that McDavid has seemingly switched from being the clear best ES producer from '17 to '19 to the clear best PP producer as he has separated himself from the pack.

Should we look at him in the same way as Mario is viewed as being reliant on the PP or just a great player who is going to get his points regardless?

 

[blogofmike]

Interesting to note that McDavid has seemingly switched from being the clear best ES producer from '17 to '19 to the clear best PP producer as he has separated himself from the pack.

Should we look at him in the same way as Mario is viewed as being reliant on the PP or just a great player who is going to get his points regardless?

Here's the timeframe you selected:

Connor McDavid

	GP	ESP	PP	PP Chances per Game	Team PP%
2017-2019	242	236	80	2.75	19.8
2020-2021	120	122	80	2.94	28.6

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Connor McDavid disproves your point because he scores at the same rate at even strength (slightly higher rate actually) even as his PP scoring doubled. In McDavid's case it's more an increase in conversions, though there was a slight increase in chances.

In fact, McDavid looks like yet another good example to show that Lemieux was the same calibre player in 1996 as he was in 1997.

Tampa had a better PP%, but they also had a 3.29 chances per game from 2017-19 (#2 in the league) which also helped Kucherov pile up PP points. When Kucherov scored 48 PP points that was the most since 2007. But if you look at scoring since 2006, Kucherov just barely makes the top 15 PP point seasons. It's Kucherov and 14 guys from 2006 and 2007 - when PP chances were sky high.

Was Marc Savard a better PP player than Kucherov? Or did he just have a ton more PP chances in those two years?

Has Sidney Crosby been tanking as a player because he never hit 120 points again? Or was 2007 just a PP bonanza?

Looks like the reality is, Connor McDavid is a great player who is going to get his ES points regardless. If McDavid's ES scoring had dropped as his PP scoring increased, you may have had a point, (and he would quite obviously be a worse player than he is). But you don't, (and he's not).

 

[Big Phil]

Interesting to note that McDavid has seemingly switched from being the clear best ES producer from '17 to '19 to the clear best PP producer as he has separated himself from the pack.

Should we look at him in the same way as Mario is viewed as being reliant on the PP or just a great player who is going to get his points regardless?

The second one. Everyone today realizes McDavid is the best player in the NHL. Ditto for the time when Mario was playing. It isn't as if people said "Oh wow, what a lovely goal...................oh wait, I didn't realize it was on the power play. Never mind." Mario scored regardless of his situation. I never understood this because we have a guy who scored 13, 10 and 8 shorthanded goals in a season. In his best year - 1989 - that's 18 overall shorthanded points. That's a shorthanded goal every 5.8 games and a shorthanded point every 4.2 games. I mean, my goodness, why are penny pinching an all-time great here when it was clear he scored at a torrid level even when he was shorthanded?

 

[blogofmike]

The second one. Everyone today realizes McDavid is the best player in the NHL. Ditto for the time when Mario was playing. It isn't as if people said "Oh wow, what a lovely goal...................oh wait, I didn't realize it was on the power play. Never mind." Mario scored regardless of his situation. I never understood this because we have a guy who scored 13, 10 and 8 shorthanded goals in a season. In his best year - 1989 - that's 18 overall shorthanded points. That's a shorthanded goal every 5.8 games and a shorthanded point every 4.2 games. I mean, my goodness, why are penny pinching an all-time great here when it was clear he scored at a torrid level even when he was shorthanded?

Probably only matters in comparisons with around 3 other players. No one said that peak Guy Lafleur was better than Mario because Lemieux never scored as many ES points as Lafleur did in 1977.

If you're comparing a guy to Wayne Gretzky, you set your own goalposts - at what Wayne Gretzky did.

Scoring 18 SH points against 60 PPGA is pretty good in most comparisons. Gretzky's best year (1984) saw him score 23 SH points vs 31 PPGA. He also scored 15 SHP/43 PPGA the same year as Lemieux got 18/60.


As for powerplay points, they are worth the same on the scoreboard as an ES goal. Mario Lemieux scoring a PP goal is worth the same on the scoreboard....

But by the same token, John Cullen scoring an ugly PP goal is worth the same as Mario scoring a pretty one. Which is why the 1991 Penguins were just as good at scoring PP goals as the 1990 or 1992 versions. The times he missed games shows that if Mario Lemieux didn't score those PP goals, someone else would.

The Oilers were the best ES goal scoring team in the NHL for most of the 1980s. They suddenly stopped being that team when Gretzky left, more or less swapping ES scoring places with the lower scoring LA Kings. Coincidentally, in 1989 the LA Kings started being the best ES scoring team in the league for the three consecutive seasons where coincidentally Wayne Gretzky was averaging 100 ES points per 80 games. Both the Kings ES scoring lead and Gretzky's 100 ESP pace stopped after the 1991 Canada Cup. Coincidentally. When Wayne Gretzky didn't score those ES goals no one was capable of doing so. The powerhouse Oilers were still good enough to win the Stanley Cup, but they couldn't dominate the league at ES scoring like the more dominant Oilers teams did immediately before.



Pittsburgh's PP chances were amazingly high in Lemieux's prime. For comparison, the 1986 Oilers were getting 3.7 PP chances per game - that's what an average team was getting in 2010. The 1989 Pens were over 6 chances per game. That's what an average team...well the league average has never been that high. Ever. Even in 2006.

But for the sake of argument, would you take someone's 2006 PP point totals and compare them to someone's 2010 PP point totals, and do so at face value?

 

[Troubadour]

It's more PP relying on Mario who was blessed with the skillset AND scenario to take full advantage. I don't think anyone believes PPP should count for less or that they are worth less. What I think is that the reasonable people simply understand that PP's are situational and PPP's are generally easier to score, which is why potential PPP/ESP discrepancies should be taken into account when comparing two players directly.

If you're a sane person, you definitely take a guy who can score 100 ESP in 82 games plus, potentially, 60 PPP in that and that many PP minutes a year over the guy who can score 90 points in that and that many PP minutes, plus 70 ESP in 82 games, because you know you'll get your 82 games, while you don't know if you'll get that-many PP minutes. It's not a rocket science. Of course, the actually collected PPP by player B are as valuable (although "easier") as the ESP scored by player A, but the ability to score at ES should be valued higher than tendency to flourish at PP, because ES is guaranteed.

 

[Big Phil]

Probably only matters in comparisons with around 3 other players. No one said that peak Guy Lafleur was better than Mario because Lemieux never scored as many ES points as Lafleur did in 1977.

If you're comparing a guy to Wayne Gretzky, you set your own goalposts - at what Wayne Gretzky did.

Scoring 18 SH points against 60 PPGA is pretty good in most comparisons. Gretzky's best year (1984) saw him score 23 SH points vs 31 PPGA. He also scored 15 SHP/43 PPGA the same year as Lemieux got 18/60.


As for powerplay points, they are worth the same on the scoreboard as an ES goal. Mario Lemieux scoring a PP goal is worth the same on the scoreboard....

But by the same token, John Cullen scoring an ugly PP goal is worth the same as Mario scoring a pretty one. Which is why the 1991 Penguins were just as good at scoring PP goals as the 1990 or 1992 versions. The times he missed games shows that if Mario Lemieux didn't score those PP goals, someone else would.

The Oilers were the best ES goal scoring team in the NHL for most of the 1980s. They suddenly stopped being that team when Gretzky left, more or less swapping ES scoring places with the lower scoring LA Kings. Coincidentally, in 1989 the LA Kings started being the best ES scoring team in the league for the three consecutive seasons where coincidentally Wayne Gretzky was averaging 100 ES points per 80 games. Both the Kings ES scoring lead and Gretzky's 100 ESP pace stopped after the 1991 Canada Cup. Coincidentally. When Wayne Gretzky didn't score those ES goals no one was capable of doing so. The powerhouse Oilers were still good enough to win the Stanley Cup, but they couldn't dominate the league at ES scoring like the more dominant Oilers teams did immediately before.



Pittsburgh's PP chances were amazingly high in Lemieux's prime. For comparison, the 1986 Oilers were getting 3.7 PP chances per game - that's what an average team was getting in 2010. The 1989 Pens were over 6 chances per game. That's what an average team...well the league average has never been that high. Ever. Even in 2006.

But for the sake of argument, would you take someone's 2006 PP point totals and compare them to someone's 2010 PP point totals, and do so at face value?

Could it be that Mario was perhaps the biggest target in NHL history that caused the Pens to have those power play opportunities? Mario was much bigger than Gretzky, and even though he had supreme hockey sense, he wasn't able to get out of the way ahead of time the way Gretzky could. This would lead to more hooking calls, more tripping/holding calls. I certainly don't deny Gretzky's ability to score and the impact he had on his teams. I am one of those types that picks Gretzky over Lemieux anyway. But here is how the Pens fared in goal scoring.

1983 Pens: 20th (not drafted yet)
1984 Pens: 20th (not drafted yet)
1985 Pens: 17th (rookie season)
1986 Pens: 11th
1987 Pens: 7th
1988 Pens: 4th
1989 Pens: 3rd
1990 Pens: 4th
1991 Pens: 2nd
1992 Pens: 1st
1993 Pens: 2nd
1994 Pens: 4th
1995 Pens: 2nd
1996 Pens: 1st
1997 Pens: 1st
1998 Pens: 7th (Mario has retired)
1999 Pens: 4th (Mario has retired)
2000 Pens: 9th (Mario has retired)
2001 Pens: 2nd (Mario makes his comeback)

The way I see it, the more dominant Mario got offensively the more goals the Pens as a whole scored, because Mario himself was scoring more and more. Yes the 1995 Pens still scored a lot without Mario for a season, but they still had a pretty good core. Does anyone think Mario playing all year there doesn't improve their team? I think even during his first retirement you saw the fruits right off the bat of Mario missing. Look at their scoring levels though after 1997.

Not just that, but is there a player in NHL history that has surpassed Mario's 1989 stat where he had a point on 57.4% of the team's goals? I don't know if there can be more impact than that. Power play or not.

 

[MadLuke]

Could it be that Mario was perhaps the biggest target in NHL history that caused the Pens to have those power play opportunities ?

I think that everyone first reflex, but PPO does not seem to go down when he miss game during a season nor between season where he miss most of it like 91 and 92 and those surrounding it.

 

[blogofmike]

Could it be that Mario was perhaps the biggest target in NHL history that caused the Pens to have those power play opportunities?

Nope. Those PP chances were coming before Lemieux was drafted and when he was out of the lineup.

The way I see it, the more dominant Mario got offensively the more goals the Pens as a whole scored, because Mario himself was scoring more and more. Yes the 1995 Pens still scored a lot without Mario for a season, but they still had a pretty good core. Does anyone think Mario playing all year there doesn't improve their team? I think even during his first retirement you saw the fruits right off the bat of Mario missing. Look at their scoring levels though after 1997.

I like this kind of analysis when trying to see a player's impact, but it needs consistency and in this case is ruined by coaching. For example, what do you see when you look at the GA totals? Was Mario Lemieux such a defensive liability that the Pens went from the 2nd worst defensive team to the 4th best in 1997-98?

My personal interpretation is that the Constantine Penguins tried a more balanced playstyle (7th in GF, 4th in GA as opposed to 1st and 25th), while the previous editions continued to run and gun (accordingly, the 1991 Pens were #1 in GF before Lemieux's late January return, and the 1995 team was #2). News at the time did say that Constantine was fired after losing the skilled players in the locker room who disliked the more heavily disciplined system he implemented.

Not just that, but is there a player in NHL history that has surpassed Mario's 1989 stat where he had a point on 57.4% of the team's goals? I don't know if there can be more impact than that. Power play or not.

McDavid has that record now. Which shows it's not just a measure of impact, it's also a measure of having very bad secondary scoring. Had Quinn/Cunneyworth or RNH/Kailer scored an extra 20 goals while their superstar teammates were off the ice it wouldn't make Lemieux or McDavid any better or worse, even if it affected the % of team goals stat.

Of course, monopolizing the PP time is going to help 66 and 97 score a higher % of team goals and comes with an opportunity cost - if the best players are on the PP all the time, a greater share of the the second unit's minutes are tougher minutes and they'll have comparitively suppressed scoring totals.

 

[wetcoast]

11-2 Wayne to Mario in times leading the league in even strength points. Jagr has 3, and also more second places than Mario.

Nobody thinks he ‘relied on the powerplay to the point where his numbers need adjusting. But, as we discuss details here, it is worth noting.

He was very likely the most talented and gifted player to ever play, imo, but i dont think he was the three zoner or the digger that many top players have been. Powerplays are part of the game, no one youd rather have out there, and no one wants to adjust numbers - only to point out that he wasnt quite the same level of monster at even strength - although injuries of course have a lot to do with him not leading more often.

This is pretty much it and the OP has a misnomer in his title IMO and no one is talking about adjusting Mario's numbers because of the PP.

I have for years said, because hell it's true and backed up by the evidence out there, that Mario at ES doesn't tilt the ice in a way that one would expect a Big 4 player to do.

At the same time I have often stated that he is among the best, if not the best, PP performer of all time.

Simply put each and every player is going to have a slightly different resume and strengths and weaknesses on it.

For Mario PP performance is one of his strengths, 2 way performance at ES isn't as strong and that is a factor when comparing his to Gretzky, Orr and even Howe.

 

[MadLuke]

, that Mario at ES doesn't tilt the ice in a way that one would expect a Big 4 player to do.

If I go back to my message of last page, I would be interested into looking into this (if anyone outside the top 4 would have been able to do something like this), because:

91-92 and 92-93 season combined (weighted by game played)

	Lemieux	NoLemieux
Game	124.00	40.00
GF	4.64	3.38
GA	3.53	3.45
PPG	1.26	1.03
PPGA	0.90	0.95
Shots	32.51	30.90
Shots against	31.21	29.65
Opponent PIM	21.82	24.08
Penguins PIM	21.59	24.50
Lemieux PP pts	0.82	0.00
Lemieux non pp pts	1.52	0.00

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Those 2 season Lemieux was scoring 1.52 points while not on the powerplay a game and despite is team defensive output barely moving (2% more goal against with Lemieux), he seem to have exploded (by 37%) is team offense and more than 82% of the new offense he brought was not on the power play.

 

[wetcoast]

If I go back to my message of last page, I would be interested into looking into this (if anyone outside the top 4 would have been able to do something like this), because:

91-92 and 92-93 season combined (weighted by game played)

	Lemieux	NoLemieux
Game	124.00	40.00
GF	4.64	3.38
GA	3.53	3.45
PPG	1.26	1.03
PPGA	0.90	0.95
Shots	32.51	30.90
Shots against	31.21	29.65
Opponent PIM	21.82	24.08
Penguins PIM	21.59	24.50
Lemieux PP pts	0.82	0.00
Lemieux non pp pts	1.52	0.00

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Those 2 season Lemieux was scoring 1.52 points while not on the powerplay a game and despite is team defensive output barely moving (2% more goal against with Lemieux), he seem to have exploded (by 37%) is team offense and more than 82% of the new offense he brought was not on the power play.

This is interesting and does point to Mario at his peak in the playoffs as well although I was talking more in terms of ESGF/ESGA as we can compare this with all of the players (although for Howe we do have to take an educated guess based on later stats).

Also Orr and Gretzky have longer primes in doing this but I'm not sure on 2 years if we could find something comparable to this.

Also I don't think that this happened in these 2 years but in alter years Mario wouldn't play in back to back games at times and that can also influence the findings a bit but I'm not sure if this factors in here.

The one line that is very interesting is the PPGA which goes up slightly with Mario out of the lineup but statically it might be insignificant.

I just realized that I was looking at 90-91 and 91-92 so who knows...lol

What is the breakdown for other seasons were he missed games or are these 2 seasons the outliers or absolute peaks?

Overall I'm not sure what to conclude here though as we see currently the Penguins start off 5-0 with both Crosby and Malkin out and the year Karlsson had his first significant injury the Sens actually had a better winning % with him out than in the games he was in so sometimes weird things do happen.

One thing did come to mind was the influx of Ronnie Francis late in 90-91 and then having a historically poor offensive year in 91-92 and having Rechhi/Tocchet as his RW for that time period as well.

Those numbers do certainly point to Mario being an offensive force at ES and titling the ice in those 2 years though.